Your Views on Dawkins?

[clemdog14]

So you are cherry picking and leaving out vital elements regarding his reasons for arriving at his conclusions about the best explanation.
How do you suppose that he got to those assumptions?

I wouldn't say per se that I am cherry picking. I am just quoting a section when he compares picking unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God.

That source you sited early uses a very incomplete analogy too. This assumes that all you have to go on is the noise you hear when determining the cause at the stadium. We have the ability to research, gather data, make reasonable decisions based on that data. If you followed up and researched what caused the ruckus at the stadium, you have done much more than simply speculate what the likelier cause was and would arrive at a much more satisfying conclusion.

Maybe it is an incomplete analogy. It's true that you could probably find the answer by researching the stadium, however, I think that when comparing the two (the scientific inquiry on unguided Darwinian evolution vs. the existence of God) one cannot really evaluate the existence of God scientifically.

Plantinga's analogy was meant to represent that given each option and their low probabilities, that picking one over the other (even though both are largely improbable based on the argument) does not really follow. He was not trying to ascertain the scientific study of the stadium noises.

---

What you fail to understand is that no one deifies Hitchen, Dawkins, Harris or Dennett... "The Four Horsemen". It is a silly, childish notion that all of them would reject outright.

I am not being sarcastic in this reply. This is the answer I was looking for in my thread. I am just curious on what you all think of Richard Dawkins.

Are you in training to become a priest??

I do not know yet. I do not know my vocation yet, however, I am leaning towards counseling.

Take some time to read through our major categories and you may find information you are seeking

I appreciate it.